Reading comprehension goes beyond decoding words: it involves the deep understanding of sentences and texts, transforming a reader who can read into a competent one. However, international reports (e.g., last PISA report; OECD, 2023) highlight that many students complete primary education with low reading levels and superficial comprehension. Extracting complex ideas or making inferences remains a challenge in many European countries, especially for students with learning difficulties.

Among these, deaf students face particular challenges, raising concerns and interest in research on reading acquisition. Studies show that deaf students complete primary education with reading levels equivalent to those of hearing students in early grades (Easterbrooks & Lederberg, 2021). Their reading difficulties stem from deficits in code access, resulting in inefficient word reading (Mathews & O’Donnell, 2020) and requiring alternative strategies for accessing information.

Low reading performance in different populations suggests the need to review traditional reading models and move towards more complex approaches (e.g., the Active View of Reading [AVR]; Duke & Cartwright, 2021). These models emphasize key skills such as vocabulary knowledge, grammar, and complex mental representations of words. Defined in the AVR as bridging skills, these connect the basic skills proposed in simple models (e.g., the Simple View of Reading [SVR]; Hoover & Gough, 1990; revised in 2022)—decoding and oral comprehension—with more complex processes. Lexical-semantic integration has been shown to be crucial for students with decoding difficulties (de Sousa et al., 2020; Gutierrez-Sigut et al., 2022; Savill et al., 2018), facilitating access to minimal structures and, in some cases, enabling the attainment of competent reading levels.

Previous research within the SVR framework has demonstrated that its two main components explain approximately 70% of the variance in reading in opaque languages such as English (e.g., see Ripoll et al., 2014, for a metanalysis). However, recent analyses indicate that part of this variance is shared between both components, limiting their explanatory power (Lonigan et al., 2018). Skills such as vocabulary and reading fluency may occupy an intermediate position. In transparent languages such as Spanish, simplifying the reading process shows more evident limitations. A recent study found that combining word reading and oral comprehension measures explained less than 30% of the variance in sentence comprehension, whereas a broader model including vocabulary and grammar explained between 50% and 55% in early and intermediate primary education grades. Reviews based on the AVR indicate that interventions focused solely on the simple model’s components have less impact on struggling readers, whereas bridging skills and self-regulation strategies have been shown to improve their performance (Burns et al., 2023).

This study expands this research line by identifying key predictors of reading comprehension in deaf and hearing students. The aim was to explain sentence and text comprehension in deaf and hearing primary school students. A wide model was used, considering both basic and advanced skills without prioritizing one over the other, to refine previous findings and contribute to the design of pedagogical strategies.

A comprehensive model was built, incorporating measures of metaphonological, orthographic, lexical-semantic (superficial and deep vocabulary), grammatical, and reading strategy-related skills. Metaphonological skills were assessed through syllable and phoneme counting tasks. Orthographic skills were measured using a pseudohomophone pairs test requiring the identification of correctly spelled words with Spanish orthographic exceptions. Vocabulary was assessed by distinguishing between the number of known words (superficial) and the quality of semantic relationships (deep). Grammar was assessed through morphology (word derivation) and syntax (selecting functional words to complete a sentence). The Keyword Strategy, relevant to the reading levels achieved by deaf children and adults, was also included. This strategy involves relying solely on words with semantic content while disregarding functional words and grammatical markers (Domínguez et al., 2016; Gómez-Merino et al., 2020). A specific test was applied to analyze its impact on reading comprehension. Most of the tasks were part of the PEALE battery (Domínguez et al., 2013). Others were adapted from their original versions, including group-assessing modifications in the PEABODY vocabulary test (Dunn et al., 2006), the definition task in WISC-V (Weschler, 2015) and text reading comprehension task in PROLEC-R (Cuetos et al., 2007). Sentence (measured using TECLE; revised in Carrillo et al., 2024) and text reading comprehension were the outcome variables. The analyzed groups included deaf students (N=14) with hearing degrees from mild to severe, and hearing students (N=90). Among the hearing students, a subgroup was selected to match the reading level of the deaf students. Statistical analyses included contrast analyses, correlations, and backward regression to determine which skills explained the largest proportion of variance in reading comprehension. Analyses were conducted separately for each group to identify the skills explaining similar reading levels. Additionally, a total model was calculated to assess the explained variance in sentence and text comprehension, comparing the results with previous studies in different linguistic models.

The results showed that the full model explained 83.3% of the variance in sentence comprehension and 62.3% in text comprehension in the full group of hearing students. For deaf students, only the sentence comprehension model reached significance (79.7%). The main predictors varied between groups and across reading structures. For deaf students, orthographic skills predicted sentence comprehension, while superficial vocabulary was the primary predictor of text comprehension. The use of the Keyword Strategy was the second most relevant predictor for sentence comprehension in deaf students but the first in hearing students. Performance in this test was higher in hearing students, particularly compared to those with a lower degree of hearing loss. For hearing students, other predictors included orthographic skills, age, and morphosyntax. In text comprehension, age was the only significant predictor in hearing students matched with deaf students. In the full hearing group, deep vocabulary had a greater weight than superficial vocabulary, followed by sentence comprehension and grammatical measures, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Metaphonological skills were excluded from all prediction models. These findings highlight that while phonology is essential in early reading, it must be complemented by orthographic, semantic, and morphological skills to achieve advanced reading competence. Alternative lexical-semantic strategies benefit students with decoding difficulties, highlighting the importance of acquiring strong lexical-semantic and orthographic skills. Ensuring full access to textual content, including functional words and grammatical markers, is crucial. Additionally, activating deep semantic knowledge in hearing students has been shown to enhance more complex comprehension (Oakhill, 2020). These conclusions reinforce the need to design effective educational materials that integrate these skills to improve reading comprehension in the classroom.

Burns, M. K., Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Evaluating components of the active view of reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice. School Psychology, 38(1), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000519 de Sousa, L. B., Hubner, L. C., & da Silva, R. B. F. (2020). Lexical-semantic integration by good and poor reading comprehenders. Ilha Do Desterro, 73(1), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2020v73n1p63 Domínguez, A. B., Carrillo, M. S., González, V., & Alegría, J. (2016). How Do Deaf Children With and Without Cochlear Implants Manage to Read Sentences: The Key Word Strategy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(3), 280-292. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw026 Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411 Easterbrooks, S. R., & Lederberg, A. R. (2021). Reading fluency in young elementary school age deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 26(1), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa024 Gómez-Merino, N., Fajardo, I., Ferrer, A., & Arfé, B. (2020). Time-Course of Grammatical Processing in Deaf Readers: An Eye-Movement Study. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(3), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa005 Gutierrez-Sigut, E., Vergara-Martínez, M., & Perea, M. (2022). The impact of visual cues during visual word recognition in deaf readers: An ERP study. Cognition, 218, 104938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104938 Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2022). The Primacy of Science in Communicating Advances in the Science of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.446 Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading with elementary school children: still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518764833 Mathews, E. S., & O’Donnell, M. (2020). Phonological decoding and reading comprehension in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1646954 Oakhill, J. (2020). Four Decades of Research into Children’s Reading Comprehension: A Personal Review. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 57, 402-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1740875 Ripoll, J. C. R., Aguado, G. A., & Castilla-Earls, A. (2014). The simple view of reading in elementary school: A systematic review. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 34(1), 17-31. Savill, N., Cornelissen, P., Whiteley, J., Woollams, A., & Jefferies, E. (2018). Individual Differences in Verbal Short-Term Memory and Reading Aloud: Semantic Compensation for Weak Phonological Processing Across Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(10), 1815-1831. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000675